The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1887-04-20
ruE MARRIAGE or cot>,N
Peculiar Case Arising Under ~ Re
cent Indiana statute,


cent Indiana statute,
TERRE llAuTE, Ind, April ia .
case has Just been decided III the cir.
cult court here. in which is involved I
the legality of the marriage of first
cousins in this state, and which on
the final decision by the supreme
court, may affect tho legality of hun.
dreds of such marriages. Very few
clergymcn, or others having authori-
ty to perform the marriage service,
are aware that in 1877 law was passed
whose intent il would seem 10 be TO
prohibit the marriage of first cousins,
but which, by lack of explicitness, has
lett the question in doubt Up to
1917 the law OF the state explicitly
prohibited the marriage O where
either party has a husband OF wife
living at the time. (2) whore ono l.
white and the other possessed OF one
eight or more of negro blood, and (3)
whore either l. insane or idlotlc. The
common law prevails where no other
il provided. and under the common
or cunonical law of England the mar
rage of first cousins were not Illegal.
la 1873 section 1924 was added to the
statutes. II declares that all marriages
prohibited by law on account of con-
sanguini,y, affinity, etc, shall be aO.
solutely void, without any legal pro-
ceedings' This, of course. operates
on the following statute of 1870
Section 1884. Marriage IL declared
10 be IA civil contract, into which males
of the age OF Is, and females AT the age
OF l6. not nearer kin than second
cousins, and not having n husband or
wife living, are capable of entering.
The whole question, IT Will be seen,
is whether the term mot nearer Of
kin than second cousins' can be con
strucd rs prohibition. The statute
says certain persons may marry, aud
only bv Implication that Others shall
not Under the common law the
marriage of first COUSINS was not
void. but voidablc, and only during
/ the lie of the parties. such was the
decision of the judge in the case here,
wherein the mother sues TO recover
from the husband of her deceased
/ daughter certain property, claiming
/ TO be the herr at law on the ground
/ that the marriage of first cousins was
absolutely void.
/ Blackstone says:
In general all persons are able to
contract themselves in marriage un-
| less they labor under some particular
disabilities aud incapacities.
- : A l.. -. l.. ii
"a natural right,the usual construction
OF one thing expressed all others cN-
Guided can not apply because the
rule of construction is equally well
established that you can enlarge but
not restrict the natural rights by
implication. Blackstone further says
as to these disabilities:
They are of two sore: ID such ae
are canomcal and therefore sufficient
by the ecclesiastical laws TO avoid the
marriage IN the spiritual court; but
these in our law only make the mar
ringe voidable and not ipso tactC
void until sentence of nullity be OBJ
tanned. But such marriages
not being void ab initio. but void
able only by sentence OF separation
they are esteemed valid 10 all civil
.
purposes, unless such separation il
actually made during the life of the
parties For after the death of either
the courts OF common law will not
suffer the apirituvl courts to declare
such marriages TO have been void be-
cause such declaration, can not now
tend to the reformation OF the par
ties.
An instance Is cited whore the bish'
ops court was proceeding to annul "a
marriage after the death of the wife
who was former wites sister, and
the kings court prohibited the annul-
ment, but permitted the punishment
of the husband tor. incest. / is u fac
not commonly known that the Levitt
, ical law does not prohibit the marri
age of first cousins.